active vs. passive voice in Thai writing

[BananaBandit]

Proper written English tends to stress the importance of using active instead of passive voice. 

 

Does proper written Thai care about such a distinction?

 

 

On a side note:

 

to say something like "Your dog bit me" in active voice, one should put:

หมาของคุณกัดผม       correct?

 

And to express the same matter in passive voice, one should put:

ผมถูกหมาของคุณกัด             is that correct?

[Richard W]

A versatile Thai passive used to sound a bit stilted - as though the text were a translation of English.  The ถูก/โดน construction is meant for passives where the patient suffers.  It has been argued that the somewhat unusual word order reflects the original semantics.

 

I'm not sure whether หมา is the correct word for 'dog' in your sentences; does the vileness of its behaviour permit one to refer to it as หมา rather than สุนัข?

[ColeBOzbourne]

5 hours ago, Richard W said:

I'm not sure whether หมา is the correct word for 'dog' in your sentences; does the vileness of its behaviour permit one to refer to it as หมา rather than สุนัข?

Although สุนัข is more formal and polite, I commonly hear dogs referred to as หมา and didn't realize it depicted the animal as being particularly vile. Although if it bit someone, I think it deserves the title. I typically hear a menacing mutt described as หมาดุ. 

[BananaBandit]

On 5/28/2022 at 2:19 AM, ColeBOzbourne said:

Although สุนัข is more formal and polite, I commonly hear dogs referred to as หมา and didn't realize it depicted the animal as being particularly vile.

I suspect he's referring to the distinction between ภาษาพูด and ภาษาเขียน 

[BananaBandit]

On 5/28/2022 at 2:19 AM, ColeBOzbourne said:

I typically hear a menacing mutt described as หมาดุ. 

I didn't even realize it was ดุ with a short vowel until you posted (and I cross-checked).

 

Previously, I had thought it was หมาดู like a "watch dog."

[BananaBandit]

Since my original post, I was told by a reasonably-educated Thai that the distinction between active and passive voice is unimportant in Thai writing. 

 

If someone insists otherwise, I'd be interested to hear specifics.

[ColeBOzbourne]

10 hours ago, BananaBandit said:

I suspect he's referring to the distinction between ภาษาพูด and ภาษาเขียน 

That's possible. Out of curiosity I looked at my books of Aesop's Fables (in Thai) because the story of The Dog and His Reflection is repeated in two separate books by different publishing companies. In one book they used สุนัข throughout the story, and in the other book they use หมา.